Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210120133946.2107897-1-jackmanb@google.com> <20210121115357.31f44f34@lwn.net>
In-Reply-To: <20210121115357.31f44f34@lwn.net>
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Jan 2021 17:25:37 -0800
Message-ID: <CAADnVQJNB9++eWA-uPdOzviV-UXEdC-tWfsUy3DRjV2ULs3LYA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 0/2] BPF docs fixups
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc:     Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>,
        Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:54 AM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 13:39:44 +0000
> Brendan Jackman <jackmanb@google.com> wrote:
>
> > Difference from v2->v3 [1]:
> >
> >  * Just fixed a commite message, rebased, and added Lukas' review tag - thanks
> >    Lukas!
> >
> > Difference from v1->v2 [1]:
> >
> >  * Split into 2 patches
> >
> >  * Avoided unnecessary ': ::' in .rst source
> >
> >  * Tweaked wording of the -mcpu=v3 bit a little more
> >
> > [1] Previous versions:
> >     v1: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CA+i-1C1LVKjfQLBYk6siiqhxfy0jCR7UBcAmJ4jCED0A9aWsxA@mail.gmail.com/T/#t
> >     v2: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210118155735.532663-1-jackmanb@google.com/T/#t
> >
> > Brendan Jackman (2):
> >   docs: bpf: Fixup atomics markup
> >   docs: bpf: Clarify -mcpu=v3 requirement for atomic ops
> >
> >  Documentation/networking/filter.rst | 20 +++++++++++---------
> >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> I'm assuming these will go up through the BPF/networking trees; please let
> me know if I should pick them up instead.

I sent an email yesterday indicating that the set was applied to bpf-next.
There is no other tree it can be applied to without conflicts.
Looks like gmail is struggling again.